World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

[MARAB0D]

I did not mention money, I mentioned self-interest, self-centeredness and self-delusion.

I disagree. It's not based on self-respect, it's based on self-centerdness.

I disagree. Christianity teaches that all humans are self-centered, whether rich or poor. The rich are no less or no more spiritual, they may, however, worry less about their spiritual/eternal status because their terrestrial status is comfortable enough to lull them.

Your outlook reflects the way how you were brought up, no more. This is what forms personal opinions. A self-centered person would by default except the others to be self-centered too, in the same exactly sense of self-centeredness.

Meanwhile Jesus clearly stated that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich person to enter Kingdom of God. One way or another this theme later developed in Communism and associated teachings.

[IamsSon]

Your outlook reflects the way how you were brought up, no more. This is what forms personal opinions. A self-centered person would by default except the others to be self-centered too, in the same exactly sense of self-centeredness.

If that is true, then your outlook reflects the way you were brought up and no more also, so what? That's a non-argument.

Question; Are you, perchance, one of the elite?

Meanwhile Jesus clearly stated that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich person to enter Kingdom of God. One way or another this theme later developed in Communism and associated teachings.

And yet, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich and powerful man, was a follower of Jesus, recovered His body from the Romans and provided a grave. The "Church" may teach the rich are somehow spiritually inferior, but that's not what the Scriptures teach.

Edited January 25, 2010 by IamsSon

[MARAB0D]

If that is true, then your outlook reflects the way you were brought up and no more also, so what? That's a non-argument.

Question; Are you, perchance, one of the elite?

No, I cannot call myself "elite" of course - but I am not from the serfs either. My family was a solid good middle class for the last at least 180 years (records do not go deeper) - medical practitioners, military officers, priests, teachers, scientists. However there were some wealthy peasants too same as factory workers.

And yet, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich and powerful man, was a follower of Jesus, recovered His body from the Romans and provided a grave. The "Church" may teach the rich are somehow spiritually inferior, but that's not what the Scriptures teach.

This is not a historical example It is a recorded myth. I thought I have quoted you from scriptures what Jesus was teaching.

[Paranormalcy]

Enough of this. How "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown" requires Jesus, Communism, elitism and people's family history is just completely beyond me and I STRONGLY urge people to get back on the topic, ASAP, this is ridiculous.

[acidhead]

[MARAB0D]

Enough of this. How "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown" requires Jesus, Communism, elitism and people's family history is just completely beyond me and I STRONGLY urge people to get back on the topic, ASAP, this is ridiculous.

Para, it was about the mechanisms how incompetent and dishonest people make their ways to science. Fortunately this climate affair managed to discredit the science so heavily that any future government would be experiencing problem using the reference to science in their political adventures. This would inevitably reduce the attraction science presents for various schemes.

[ExpandMyMind]

U.N. Climate Chief Enriches Himself with Bogus Scientific Report

The Sunday Times (U.K.) reports that the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, won millions of dollars in grants to research a scientific claim about glaciers in the Himalayas that was known to be bogus.

Glaciologists consider the claim in question, that the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035, to be erroneous. But it appears that knowledge did not stop the chairman of the IPCC from applying for and receiving grants to study its impacts anyway.

Some $500,000 came from the Carnegie Corporation in New York, while millions of dollars came from an EU grant funded by European taxpayers. The massive grants were to fund research into the potential impacts that glacial melt will have on the Himalayan region.

http://www.americansolutions.com/energy/2010/01/un-climate-chief-enriches-himself-with-bogus-scientific-report.php

the chief of the IPCC benefits from something he knew was a lie?

someone please put this organisation out of it's misery.

[IamsSon]

Climategate: Who Benefits When the IPCC Lies?

What if there really are people exploiting the anthropogenic global warming panic purely for personal gain? A lot has happened in the climate change debate in the two months since the Climategate files were first revealed to the world. Oddly, the latest news hasn’t been making the papers in the U.S., but it sure has been in London.

One thing that has become clear is that the science in the IPCC reports was suspiciously slanted. Last weekend one of the IPCC principals, Dr. Murari Lal, admitted that they had introduced 2035 as the year the Himalayan glaciers would disappear — even though they knew it was questionable — in order to have more political impact:

Dr. Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with

The Mail

on Sunday, Dr. Lal, the coordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: “It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

But why? Are they simply true believers who feel that the risk of anthropogenic global warming is so great that skewing the science would be justified? As scientists, that would be bad enough. But there’s another explanation. Could it be that the skewing of the results is not just being done by true believers, but instead by cynical manipulators intent on their own gain?

Full article